Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.

Accepted Paper:

Lessons learnt from KMS and PKMS as supplement for social protection scheme. Case studies of Yogyakarta and Surakarta City, Indonesia  
Andie Arif Wicaksono (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Paper short abstract:

The KMS of Yogyakarta in 2009 was adopted by Surakarta in 2010 as PKMS. They became the supplemental system after the national government initiated BPJS Kesehatan in 2014. They prove to reduce the poverty in the city level as they also covered the vulnerable poor, which are not covered by BPJS.

Paper long abstract:

The KMS was initiated by the Yogyakarta city government in 2009, as a social safety net for citizens in the form of free health and education services, dedicated to all poor citizens. As a safety net, the entire citizen in Yogyakarta can get free 3rd class service access in the government-owned clinics and hospital using this KMS. In 2010, the Surakarta city government adopted this scheme as: PKMS for free healthcare and BPMKS for free education. In 2014, the National Government initiated Universal Health Coverage (UHC) through BPJS Kesehatan. All of the poor in Indonesia are included in this scheme. The premium is paid through the national budget. Thus, KMS and PKMS became the supplement for social protection scheme in those cities after the initiation of BPJS Kesehatan.

This research is a part of the researcher's PhD trajectory. This in-depth case study research uses empirical exploratory approach with purposive sampling derived from a list of related participants: Local Governments officers, The Mayors, NGO person, local academia, and communities. The primary data is collected using interview with snowball sampling and focused group, while secondary data is collected from policies and reports to understand the context of problems.

The result shows that the implementation of KMS and PKMS as supplemental system for social protection reduced the poverty in Yogyakarta and Surakarta in comparison to other cities. It is because both also covered the vulnerable poor category, which is not covered in BPJS Kesehatan scheme.

Panel F06
Synergies among social protection schemes for poverty and inequality reduction (Paper)
  Session 1